The
grand jury reviewed the policies and practices of Family Support Division
collections from non-custodial parents as a result of a complaint. The
grand jury conducted a preliminary investigation into the circumstances
reported by the complainant and assisted the complainant in resolving
specific issues. During this process, the grand jury identified a need
for the Family Support Division to assess the level of client satisfaction
with its services.

The Family Support
Division administered the wage garnishment of a former resident of San
Mateo County required to make monthly child support payments. Following
relocation to Contra Costa County and marriage, the complainant reported
apparent accounting discrepancies to the Family Support Division. According
to the complainant, payments had not been properly credited, thereby causing
administrative sanctions to be unfairly invoked against him. The sanctions
included possible revocation of his driving privileges and the placement
of liens against tax refunds.

The grand jury met
with Family Support Division staff on three occasions to review standard
operating procedures and inquire into the complainant's grievances. The
grand jury determined that the automated accounting system does not credit
overpayments submitted by the employers of non-custodial parents as part
of the court-ordered payment schedule. Overpayments are applied to arrearages
and are not carried over to the next month to satisfy regular support
payment requirements resulting in an underpayment the following month.

The complainant had
tried unsuccessfully to transfer his account to Contra Costa County. The
grand jury was instrumental in expediting the requested transfer and establishing
the proper balance owed upon completion of the transfer.

The grand jury continued
to examine the level of client satisfaction with Family Support Division
collection practices. During its inquiry into the initial complaint, the
grand jury received two additional informal complaints. Both parties withdrew
their complaints, but the grand jury's focus shifted from resolving the
issues surrounding the initial complaint to examining overall client satisfaction.

The grand jury met
with the district attorney and Family Support Division staff to discuss
the development of a client satisfaction survey. The district attorney,
grand jury, and the Family Support Division collaborated on the development
of a survey which was distributed to a random sampling of the Family Support
Division clients. (Exhibit
1) The Family Support Division further agreed to share the results
of the survey with the grand jury.

The county printed
and distributed the surveys ahead of schedule. The results shared with
the grand jury show that parents receiving support payments are generally
satisfied with the program. Non-custodial parents required to make monthly
payments are often more critical of the program, but their responses have
not identified any serious defects with collection policies and practices.
The responses by clients will facilitate the Family Support Division's
management of its resources to successfully collect payments of persons
responsible for the support children.

The Family Support
Division has the task of collecting court-ordered support payments and
does not collect money to defray costs for managing collections. The program
serves nearly 28,000 dependents. The Family Support Division's annual
collections are approaching $30 million - a 200% increase in ten years
(1990-1999). During that same period, staffing has doubled. The Family
Support Division effectively and efficiently does its job. The grand jury
thanks the district attorney for his help in assessing the levels of client
satisfaction and acknowledges the professionalism of the Family Support
Division's staff.

The Family Support
Division program is currently administered by the district attorney. Responsibility
for this collection program will be transferred from the district attorney
to a new county agency on or before January 1, 2003.